Fregia v. St. Clair et al
Filing
9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 06/28/17. First Amended Complaint due : (21-Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARK A. FREGIA,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
12
Case No. 1:16-cv-01866-SKO (PC)
St. CLARI, et al.,
(Doc. 1)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
13
Defendants.
14
INTRODUCTION
15
16
A.
Background
17
Plaintiff, Mark A. Fregia, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. As discussed below, Plaintiff fails to state a
19
cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted and the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave
20
to file a first amended complaint.
21
B.
Screening Requirement and Standard
22
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
24
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
25
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
26
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
28
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
1
1
2
3
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
C.
Pleading Requirements
1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
4
“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
5
exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
6
U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain
7
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a).
8
“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
9
the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
10
Violations of Rule 8, at both ends of the spectrum, warrant dismissal. A violation occurs
11
when a pleading says too little -- the baseline threshold of factual and legal allegations required
12
was the central issue in the Iqbal line of cases. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
13
129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The Rule is also violated, though, when a pleading says too much.
14
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir.2011) (“[W]e
15
have never held -- and we know of no authority supporting the proposition -- that a pleading may
16
be of unlimited length and opacity. Our cases instruct otherwise.”) (citing cases); see also
17
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a dismissal under Rule 8,
18
and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this case
19
impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).
20
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
21
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
22
678, quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff must set forth
23
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal,
24
556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true, but
25
legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
26
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
27
28
While “plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft,
580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally
2
1
and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations,”
3
Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights
4
complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” Bruns v.
5
Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,
6
673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,
7
Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
8
citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient,
9
and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the
10
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Further, “repeated and knowing violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s ‘short
11
12
and plain statement’ requirement are strikes as ‘fail[ures] to state a claim,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
13
when the opportunity to correct the pleadings has been afforded and there has been no
14
modification within a reasonable time.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir.
15
2013).
16
If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as
17
possible by simply stating which of his constitutional rights he believes were violated by each
18
defendant and the factual basis for each claim. Plaintiff need not cite legal authority for his
19
claims in a second amended complaint as his factual allegations are accepted as true. The
20
amended complaint should be clearly legible (see Local Rule 130(b)), and double-spaced
21
pursuant to Local Rule 130(c).
22
2.
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) & 20(a)(2)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a party asserting a claim to relief as an
24
original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim to join, either as independent or as
25
alternate claims, as many claims as the party has against an opposing party. However, Plaintiff
26
may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a),
27
20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
28
607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the
3
1
claim(s) arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences,
2
and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers,
3
130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America,
4
623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a)
5
will the Court review the additional claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a),
6
which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.
7
The Court must be able to discern a relationship between Plaintiff’s claims or there must
8
be a similarity of parties. The fact that all of Plaintiff’s allegations are based on the same type of
9
constitutional violation (i.e. retaliation by different actors on different dates, under different
10
factual events) does not necessarily make claims related for purposes of Rule 18(a). All claims
11
that do not comply with Rules 18(a) and 20(a)(2) are subject to dismissal. Plaintiff is cautioned
12
that if he fails to elect which category of claims to pursue and his amended complaint sets forth
13
improperly joined claims, the Court will determine which claims should proceed and which
14
claims will be dismissed. Visendi v. Bank of America, N.A., 733 F3d 863, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2013).
15
Whether any claims will be subject to severance by future order will depend on the viability of
16
claims pled in the amended complaint.
17
18
3.
Linkage and Causation
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or
19
other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d
20
1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006);
21
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of
22
substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
23
conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012)
24
(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation
25
marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link,
26
or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal
27
rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013);
28
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).
4
1
Plaintiff’s allegations must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the
2
deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the
3
presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
4
at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility
5
of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
6
F.3d at 969. Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings
7
liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342.
4.
8
9
Exhibits
Plaintiff’s Complaint is comprised of six pages of factual allegations followed by 69 pages
10
of exhibits. The Court is not a repository for the parties’ evidence. Originals, or copies of
11
evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.), need not be submitted until the
12
course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary
13
judgment, at trial, or when requested by the Court). If Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his amended
14
complaint, each exhibit must be specifically referenced. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). For example,
15
Plaintiff must state “see Exhibit A” or something similar in order to direct the Court to the
16
specific exhibit Plaintiff is referencing. If the exhibit consists of more than one page, Plaintiff
17
must reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. “See Exhibit A, page 3”).
18
At this juncture, the submission of evidence is premature as Plaintiff is only required to
19
state a prima facie claim for relief. For screening purposes, the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s
20
factual allegations are true. It is unnecessary for a plaintiff to submit exhibits in support of the
21
allegations in a complaint. Thus, if Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he should
22
simply state the facts upon which he alleges a Defendant has violated his constitutional rights and
23
refrain from submitting exhibits. Further, while it appears that Plaintiff had purely charitable
24
motives for attaching a copy of his book as an exhibit (Doc. 1, pp. 17-75), he should refrain from
25
submissions that are not related to the subject matter of the action.
DISCUSSION
26
Plaintiff’s Allegations
27
A.
28
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”) in Jamestown,
5
1
California, where the instances he contends violated his civil rights occurred. Plaintiff names the
2
following prison staff as Defendants: SCC Chief Medical Executive (“CME”) J. St. Clair, M.D.;
3
SCC Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) R. Duncan; and Deputy Director J. Lewis. Plaintiff seeks
4
monetary and injunctive relief.
5
Plaintiff alleges that on March 12, 2015, CME St. Clair denied his inmate appeal (“IA”) at
6
the first level; on June 5, 2015, CEO Duncan denied it at the second level; and Dep. Dir. Lewis
7
denied it at the third level on January 6, 2016. Plaintiff attached copies of IA SCC HC 15011791
8
(“the IA”) to the Complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-16.) In the IA, Plaintiff requested “to be taken off of
9
insulin and testing because [his] hemoglobin AIC level meets the CDCR standard for diabetic
10
(sic) to be treated orally instead of injections, if so desired.” (Id., pp. 7, 9.) Plaintiff indicates that
11
he is aware that, in the past, SCC puts inmates who refuse insulin in suicide cells which he does
12
not want. (Id., p. 9.)
13
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims. He is,
14
however, provided the applicable legal standards for his stated claims and an opportunity to file
15
an amended complaint.
16
17
B.
Legal Standards
1.
Deliberate Indifference
18
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to [a
19
prisoner's] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “A medical need
20
is serious if failure to treat it will result in ‘ “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton
21
infliction of pain.” ’ ” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (2014) (quoting Jett v. Penner,
22
439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th
23
Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th
24
Cir.1997) (en banc))
25
To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must
26
first “show a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner=s condition
27
could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Second,
28
the plaintiff must show the defendants= response to the need was deliberately indifferent.”
6
1
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096
2
(quotation marks omitted)).
3
As to the first prong, indications of a serious medical need “include the existence of an
4
injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or
5
treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily
6
activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060,
7
1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at
8
1122; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). For screening purposes, Plaintiff’s
9
exposure to asbestos, which resulted in coughing, throat and eye irritation and frequent nose-
10
11
bleeds, is accepted as a serious medical need.
As to the second prong, deliberate indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than
12
negligence” and “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or
13
safety.’ ” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319).
14
Deliberate indifference is shown where a prison official “knows that inmates face a substantial
15
risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”
16
Id., at 847. In medical cases, this requires showing: (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
17
prisoner=s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Wilhelm, 680
18
F.3d at 1122 (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). “A prisoner need not show his harm was
19
substantial; however, such would provide additional support for the inmate’s claim that the
20
defendant was deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin, 974
21
F.2d at 1060.
22
Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060
23
(9th Cir.2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from
24
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person
25
‘must also draw the inference.’ ” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison
26
official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the
27
Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe,
28
Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).
7
1
Plaintiff fails to establish that any of the Defendants acted in deliberate indifference to his
2
serious medical need. If anything, Plaintiff’s allegations show that Defendants felt that Plaintiff’s
3
desire to no longer receive insulin would create a substantial risk of serious harm -- which is not
4
cognizable.
5
6
2.
Inmate Appeals
All of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the handling of his inmate appeal. “[A prison]
7
grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the
8
inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568
9
F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)
10
(no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance
11
procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance
12
procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
13
1988). “Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural
14
protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. at 10;
15
Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986).
16
Actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for
17
liability under a ' 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. The argument that anyone who knows
18
about a violation of the Constitution, and fails to cure it, has violated the Constitution himself is
19
not correct. “Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling
20
against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A
21
guard who stands and watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a
22
guard who rejects an administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not.”
23
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) citing Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645,
24
656-57 (7th Cir.2005); Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 851-52 (7th Cir.1999); Vance v. Peters,
25
97 F.3d 987, 992-93 (7th Cir.1996).
26
Thus, since he has neither a liberty interest, nor a substantive right in inmate appeals,
27
Plaintiff fails, and is unable to prove the elements of a constitutional violation purely for the
28
processing and/or reviewing of his inmate appeals.
8
However, Plaintiff may be able to prove the elements for a claim under the Eight
1
2
Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs if medical personnel who
3
were involved in reviewing his inmate appeals had both medical training and the authority, but
4
failed, to intercede and/or to take corrective action. If Plaintiff meets his burden of proof as to the
5
elements of a claim against a defendant for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs,
6
he will likely also be able to meet his burden of proof as to the elements of a claim against
7
defendants with medical training if they reviewed and ruled against Plaintiff in his medical
8
grievances/appeals on that same issue. However, since as discussed above, Plaintiff has not
9
stated a deliberate indifference claim, he cannot proceed against anyone for the handling of his
10
inmate appeal.
At least one Appellate Circuit has held that “[o]nce a [non-medical] prison grievance
11
12
examiner becomes aware of potential mistreatment, the Eight Amendment does not require him
13
or her to do more than ‘review [the prisoner’s] complaints and verif[y] with the medical officials
14
that [the prisoner] was receiving treatment.’ ” Greeno, 414 F.3d at 656 citing Spruill v. Gillis,
15
372 F.3d 218, 236 (3rd Cir. 2004) (non-physician defendants cannot “be considered deliberately
16
indifferent simply because they failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner
17
who was already being treated by the prison doctor” and if “a prisoner is under the care of
18
medical experts . . . a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the
19
prisoner is in capable hands.”) This Court concurs with the analysis in Greeno and Spruill. Thus,
20
non-medical prison personnel, and lower medical staff such as CEO Duncan and Dept. Dir.
21
Lewis, cannot be held liable for their involvement in processing and/or ruling on inmate appeals
22
for medical issues where Plaintiff was under the care of a physician for those issues.
3.
23
Violation of Title 15
a.
24
Government Claims Act
Under the Government Claims Act (“GCA”),1 set forth in California Government Code
25
26
sections 810 et seq., a plaintiff may not bring a suit for monetary damages against a public
27
1
28
The Government Claims Act was formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior
Court, 42 Cal.4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using Government Claims Act rather than
California Tort Claims Act).
9
1
employee or entity unless the plaintiff first presented the claim to the California Victim
2
Compensation and Government Claims Board (“VCGCB” or “Board”), and the Board acted on
3
the claim, or the time for doing so expired. “The Tort Claims Act requires that any civil
4
complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity.”
5
Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 (1995). The purpose of this
6
requirement is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately
7
investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of
8
San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 455, 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 (1974) (citations omitted).
9
Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause of action
10
for damages against a public entity or official. State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234,
11
1244, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 (2004). Thus, in the state courts, “failure to allege facts demonstrating
12
or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public
13
entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” Id. at 1239, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 (fn.
14
omitted).
15
Federal courts must similarly require compliance with the GCA for pendant state law
16
claims that seek damages against state public employees or entities. Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d
17
702, 704 (9th Cir.1969); Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477
18
(9th Cir.1995). State tort claims included in a federal action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
19
may proceed only if the claims were first presented to the state in compliance with the claim
20
presentation requirement. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 627
21
(9th Cir.1988); Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001 (C.D.Cal.2008). Plaintiff
22
fails to set forth any allegations which show he complied with the GCA so as to be permitted to
23
pursue claims for violation of California law in this action.
24
25
b.
No Private Enforcement
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated sections 3351 and 3084.1(d) of Title 15. The
26
existence of such regulations governing the conduct of prison employees and for prosecution of
27
criminal activities does not necessarily entitle Plaintiff to sue civilly to enforce the regulations, for
28
criminal prosecution, or to sue for damages based on their violation. The Court has found no
10
1
authority to support a finding that there is an implied private right of action under Title 15.
2
Where a private right of action has been implied, “‘there was at least a statutory basis for
3
inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.’” Chrysler Corp., 441
4
U.S. at 316 (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79 (1975)). There is no indication that sections
5
3351 and 3084.1 permit the filing of a civil enforcement action of any kind by Plaintiff. Cort,
6
422 U.S. at 79-80; Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass=n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm=n, 739 F.2d 1467,
7
1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984). Given that the statutory language does not support an inference that
8
there is a private right of action, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to state any cognizable
9
claims upon which relief may be granted based on the violation of Title 15 regulations.
c.
10
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original
11
12
jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the
13
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
14
Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). “[O]nce judicial power exists under '
15
1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is
16
discretionary.” Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). “The district
17
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . .
18
the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. '
19
1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013); Herman
20
Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Watison v.
21
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2012) (even in the presence of cognizable federal
22
claim, district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel or complex
23
issue of state law of whether criminal statutes give rise to civil liability). The Supreme Court has
24
cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be
25
dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). If
26
Plaintiff has complied with the CTCA, jurisdiction over his claims under California law will only
27
be allowed to proceed in this Court so long as he has pending federal claims.
28
///
11
1
2
4.
Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief via medical treatment for various ailments and requests
3
that his housing not be changed in retaliation for filing this suit. However, federal courts are
4
courts of limited jurisdiction, and in considering a request for injunctive relief, the Court is bound
5
by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy.
6
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge
7
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471
8
(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
9
the matter in question. Id. Here, there is no case or controversy before this Court as Plaintiff has
10
not stated any cognizable claims.
11
If Plaintiff eventually states a cognizable claim, he must next establish he has standing to
12
seek preliminary injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493-94, 129
13
S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff
14
“must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and
15
particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be
16
fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable
17
judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation and
18
quotation marks omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Requests for prospective relief are limited
19
by 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court
20
find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
21
violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of
22
the Federal right.”
23
The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in
24
general or over Plaintiff=s mail issues. Summers, 555 U.S. at 492-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
25
The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims
26
upon which this action is proceeding. Id. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to dictate
27
where Plaintiff is housed, or to restrain actions of prison staff. However, if Plaintiff experiences
28
acts he believes amount to retaliation for filing this action, he may seek redress via separate suit.
12
ORDER
1
2
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with leave to file a first
3
amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. If Plaintiff needs an extension of time to
4
comply with this order, Plaintiff shall file a motion seeking an extension of time no later than
5
Twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.
6
Plaintiff must demonstrate in any first amended complaint how the conditions complained
7
of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d
8
227 (9th Cir. 1980). The first amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
9
defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 1983 unless there is some
10
affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo
11
v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v.
12
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
13
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and
14
plain statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
15
which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v.
16
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be
17
[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 127, 555
18
(2007) (citations omitted).
19
Plaintiff is further reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v.
20
Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29,
21
2012) (en banc), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded
22
pleading,” Local Rule 220.
23
The Court provides Plaintiff with opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified
24
by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff
25
may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended
26
complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
27
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
28
1.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;
13
1
2.
The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
2
3.
Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must
3
file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in
4
this order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and
4.
5
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure
to obey a court order and for failure to state a cognizable claim.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 28, 2017
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?